Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Justin Davis]

Boss is Ridiculous, Refuted and Dumbfounded: Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!

Boss is also arguing that
all we HAVE is our human logic.
Even when we PERCEIVE what God's logic is,
we are limited and biased by our HUMAN LOGIC
so whatever logic God created for us on our level
is determining whatever we look at. it is always
limited by our human logic, which Boss is saying God created.

Now I want to isolate this thought.

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Boss' failure to properly execute the distinction delineated by the second law of thought (the law of contradiction) is the essence of Boss' default to the irrationalism of relativism.

On the grounds of the absolute standard for objectivity, the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the logically highest conceivable standard for divine attribution without begging the question:

God's creative powers are infinitely unlimited, bound by nothing but His nature of absolute perfection. Our creative powers are limited to contriving humanly conceivable things out of preexistent materials. God's knowledge/understanding is infinitely unlimited. Our knowledge is finite as our minds our finite. God is at most immanently and transcendently everywhere, contingent on nothing else but His very own Being. We can only be in one place at a time as far as we know or can tell.

The laws of thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity) ≠ Informational Knowledge.

Hence, we have the distinction between (1) operational knowledge (the laws of thought) and (2) informational knowledge (the detailed facts/actualities of existence).​

We can imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We can imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain how God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.

In other words:

(1) how could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity: for any given A: A = A? God holds that for any given A: A ≠ A? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?

(2) How could God not hold or be bound by the law of contradiction: for any two or more propositions NOT(A = NOT-A)? God holds that two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions are true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?

(3) How could God not hold or be bound by the law of the excluded middle: for all A: A OR ~A? God does not hold that either the positive or the negative form of any given proposition of a single predicate is true, but that both the positive and the negative form would be true at the time? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?​

Hence, Boss' refusal to believe that our logic is not God's uncreated logic divinely bestowed on us is an absurdity and/or an inherent contradiction of self-negation that positively proves the opposite is logically true.

That is the inescapably reality of human cognition. For any given A: A = A. It is what it is. If this axiom of human cognition is not ultimately or transcendentally true, nothing is sure. Nothing we assert about anything is necessarily true. Yet Boss claims, not only to believe all of kinds things, but to know all kinds of things based on A: A ≠ A!

Boss is outside his mind. God is not a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos. It is Boss, not God, who is the relativist. Hence, Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap!

Here's the real irony in all of this: at one point Boss held that the Transcendental Argument (TAG) is logically true insofar as God's existence is concerned, but the TAG is a double proof. It necessarily holds that (1) God exists and that (2) God is the universal Principle of Identity!

According to the laws of thought, our logic was not created, for our logic is God's logic bestowed on us by God. We cannot coherently think our way out of that axiom.

Knock Knock

Anybody home?

"Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap!"

 

[Justin Davis]

M.D. Rawlings Hot Air and Blather

Rawlings has simply not proven God didn't create logic, or offered any explanation as to how logic has any purpose or function outside of the human mind. Rawlings continues to lob insults and denigrations at someone who believes in God the same as he does, but just doesn't believe in his personal incarnation. This exposes Rawlings as a radical extremist and we would be advised to keep him (and his disciple Justin) well away from box cutters and airplanes.

Rawlings Refuted with No Comeback

If God did not create logic, God is not omnipotent. There is something in the universe which trumps God, which has more power than God, and that is Logic which God supposedly didn't create. There is no mainstream Christian religion which teaches this. In fact, it contradicts all spiritual understandings of God.

M.D. Rawlings and Sidekick Justin Defeat Their Own Purpose

If the objective of Rawlings Doctrine is to lead people to a better understanding of God, it has failed. There is at least one poster who has gone from accepting his original argument to rejecting anything further he has to say, basically because Rawlings has chosen to be an asshole. So his Doctrine has actually harmed it's own purpose.

M.D. Rawlings: A Portrait of Religious Hubris

While condemning others for their opinions on God, Rawlings maintains he knows best. He is prepared to reject every argument, even when people agree with his arguments. He makes a point to flood the board with the same claptrap over and over again, to demagogue the thread and filibuster. Attempts by mediators such as Emily have been in vain, as Rawlings demonstrates no discretion in who he attacks and insults. He is bound and determined that no other opinion can be allowed to stand. Much like the Taliban.

Don't you ever tire of looking like a damn fool, cult leader?

 

[Inevitable]

It's a secrete.

Translation: doesn't exist.

 

[Inevitable]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

I am not really interested thank you.

 

[Inevitable]

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The evidence for God's existence is everywhere. That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument. Why don't you read the thread. What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about? Most atheists are total idiots. You're a Christian right? You don't even believe what the Bible tells you? Paul's just kidding around? There's nothing to what he's saying? He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe. You don't know what they are? Seriously? Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The word "manifest" means "obvious."

You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe. Why? You don't have any reason to believe? Must be based on something. You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where? Can you even define God? What evidence spoke to you? You're the one saying you believe for no reason really. That can't be right. How can that be right? Where did you get the idea God? Do you know that much at least? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I know why I believe. The evidence is obvious. The real question is why do you believe? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. You're not making any sense. Come on, man! What made you believe that? That's all I'm asking you. Is it a secrete? Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to? You know that's not the real question. Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists. The Bible calls them fools. You don't know why they're fools? The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence. Things made you believe. What are they?

Where is the proof?

Once again I believe because I want to.

Once again that's not the question and you know it since you talk about proof at the same time. You're a phony verging on being a liar. I'm not messing around with your questions because they're phony, you're answer is phony, you're phony. I know what the proofs and the evidence are, and I know the difference between logic and science. These things have been discussed, proven and demonstrated on this thread. Read the thread or just save yourself time and read Rawlings' posts because he's one of only a small number of people who knows what he's talking about. Start with this and you'll see yourself in it, http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/ That way you can be a phony theist and a phony Christian knowing what's really true. Because phony is all you really want to be. The evidence and the proofs for God's existence are obvious. You said there's no proof or evidence. That's obviously not true, phony. You just believe because you want to. That's not true, phony. You don't believe simply because you want to, phony. You have proof and evidence in your mind and in the universe because you wouldn't even have an idea of God to believe in the first place without these things. You know what these things are. What are these things? Name them, phony.

No bud you said you have proof, let's see it.

Throwing a temper tantrum and raging and attacking me because you know the answer doesn't really make the case.

So there is no proof that God does exist. And thanks for losing your mind and proving that you were full of it.

 

[Inevitable]

I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.

No one comes to the Father except through me.

your selective memory serves you poorly ...


gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?

.

Don't give me that selective memory crap. I cut you off in that post. I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into. I wrote a few more posts to you trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity. But, no, all I got from you were more of these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again. I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me. What is it?

I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism. No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this but you, Cornflake. What is it?

BreezeWood: "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"

Rawlings: "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader. What is it?"

BreezeWood gets mad because we can't read his mind. Boss gets mad because we don't agree with the contradiction in his mind. armchaos gets mad because we know he doesn't know what he's talking about, and the atheists get mad because we know they're lying.


So why is that true? That doesn't even jive with what you just said was true. . No that doesn't jive either. .

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

Please stop with this long winded posts about nothing. You only

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The evidence for God's existence is everywhere. That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument. Why don't you read the thread. What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about? Most atheists are total idiots. You're a Christian right? You don't even believe what the Bible tells you? Paul's just kidding around? There's nothing to what he's saying? He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe. You don't know what they are? Seriously? Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The word "manifest" means "obvious."

You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe. Why? You don't have any reason to believe? Must be based on something. You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where? Can you even define God? What evidence spoke to you? You're the one saying you believe for no reason really. That can't be right. How can that be right? Where did you get the idea God? Do you know that much at least? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I know why I believe. The evidence is obvious. The real question is why do you believe? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. You're not making any sense. Come on, man! What made you believe that? That's all I'm asking you. Is it a secrete? Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to? You know that's not the real question. Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists. The Bible calls them fools. You don't know why they're fools? The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence. Things made you believe. What are they?

Where is the proof?

Once again I believe because I want to.

It's a secrete.

Translation: doesn't exist.

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.

No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
the homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.

Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
to look any further.

So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
follow their conscience to establish truth.

Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.

There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
a clear understanding that settles our conscience.

This is a good process. Why?
Because by answering these questions,
it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.

We can get the kinks out of the process
and set up smoother steps for others to follow
to come to similar conclusions at the end.

Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.

Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
are intellectually as honest as they can be
given they do not have the information and experience
I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.

The fact they are open at all, says a lot.

Please do not take this for granted
and think it is phony or a game.

The people I see who are biased against serious research to
settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
in response to how atheists have been bashed.
And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.

Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
science and medical studies that explaint he
process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
so that factor will help with reconciling all these
other issues in turn.

Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
while we seek corrections.

The ones who seek to exclude and divide
will find resolution later as the process moves forward.

The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and
work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
once this is proven to work in building a consensus.

He's not being real with us. Women are more soft on these things. Most men don't have any tolerance for this kind of crap. Actually, liberal men do, but not conservative men. This is not about forgiveness or being nice. It's about the difference between men and women. He came onto this discussion claiming that there is no proof or evidence for God's existence, yet he believes God exists. Sorry. But that's baloney. Where did he get the idea of God in order to believe God exists in the first place? He knows the answer to that question. The answer is not "I believe because I want to." He knows that's not the question, and he knows his question about proof is phony.

I really don't feel like getting into why I believe it's personal and rather emotional. Why do you need that information to prove God exists? It's anecdotal. It couldn't possibly prove anything to anybody.

Quit calling people names quit asking me irrelevant questions and prove God exists, or don't proving yourself a charlatan.

 

[Justin Davis]

Boss is also arguing that
all we HAVE is our human logic.

No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.

Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.

We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.

I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic.

Shot-winded, meaningless nonsense. Boss refuses to believe that God gave us minds like his, the logic, thoughts and concepts of his mind. Boss refuses to believe that God bestowed his logic on creation. The logic of our minds is the law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Boss just used human logic to tell us things about God and ultimate reality. That must wrong because human logic doesn't tell us anything that's true. Intrinsic spiritual awareness comes from sentience and logic. Contradiction and chaos is Boss' logic. Boss is chaos.

P.S. I don't think this "refusal" to relate the logic of man's mind with the mind/logic of God
is meant as something negative or false; I believe Boss is trying to put man's knowledge in perspective with God's which is of course greater.

I agree with you that if Boss does not understand the Christian concept of
how "in Christ" our will can be made one with God's then this is not going to make sense.

To Boss it is going to sound like such a person believes they are speaking for God which is presumptious
to say the least.

But M.D. equally objects to "arrogant" assertions by atheists claiming to KNOW what can or cannot be.

It seems clear to me, nobody really takes too well to someone else thinking they "know more"
what is really going on with God than anyone else's guess.

Both M.D. and Boss object to this.

Boss expresses it by stating the knowledge and logic of man is less than God
and for all we know, we don't know what God knows or God's reasons or ways.

I think that is fair as long as you keep it open.

But MD is not being open about relative views, but seems BENT on EXCLUDING that approach to understanding.
while Boss is closed to the idea that human logic can align or represent God's logic.

So they keep clashing.

I can work with MD ways and Boss ways because I am okay with both absolutes
and relatives as not contradicting each other necessarily.

But they keep rejecting each other because they see these as conflicted. I don't.

Even though man's logic is less, it can align and represent what is going on
with God's will for humanity collectively.
I don't have a problem with that.

I also don't have a problem with people like Boss making sure NOT to
impose absolutes to the point where they exclude someone else's relative approach
and what they know.

I think the ideal is to arrive at the absolutes by free will and reason,
so this requires the faith in those truths existing
and it requires the openness to check ourselves
and know that we just know "parts" of the greater truth or logic/knowledge out there.

Nothing wrong with staying humble and keeping
it in perspective so we keep an open mind and don't get stuck on our absolutes.

The absolutist simply holds to what logic dictates. Boss wants to hold out for something that violates logic and what history's philosophers and theologians known to be irrational. Whatever. Boss' crap is the kind of things that cults believe in, brain wash, mind control. Pretty sick. He wants to pick and choose his beliefs. When the conclusions of organic logic suit him he wants them, when they don't he doesn't. He might as well not even make arguments, just make a list of what he wants to believe and why, and stop with all the baloney that reason has anything to do with what he believes. This is Boss: . He just dances all over the place not understanding a damn thing that comes out of mouth. . Logic proves that he's wrong, now he's trying to say logic doesn't prove things, just like the other dummies. Logic doesn't start with absurdities, and I object to something Rawlings just said to you about Boss' "possibility." It's not a logical possibility in formal logic. I know Rawlings knows that and I know what he meant to say, he just said it wrong. Point that out to Rawlings and watch what he does. Is Rawlings a phony? No. He's not a phony. He admits errors and corrects them. Boss is a phony though. He's GT now or Hollie talking moobat nonsense. Ding Dong. Could Boss still be right if what organic logic proves must be true about God is just a coincidence of human nature? Yeah. But it's not a formal logical possibility, just something we can imagine. I can imagine that my dog's a cat. Like Rawlings says, Boss is just pretending that he can explain how God's logic could be "anti-the laws of logic", but he can't. No one can. And we all know that. It's stupid. And the phonies on this thread are just pretending that Boss' crap is something that we should take serious. Hey, maybe pigs can fly. How messed up is that?

God believes cat = dog? All Boss is saying is that the laws of logic are true for God, except when there not true for God. When we ask him to explain that stupid crap, all he really says is that they're not true for God when I say so. That's all Boss is saying, nothing else, for all you dummies out there. Anyone who doesn't get that especially after Rawlings last post is an idiot. I never seen so may phonies in one place in my life, after Rawlings' last post if Boss implies that his imaginary idea, which is just like something from nothing, explains or did explain how God is anti laws of logic again, I'm putting him down for punk ass lying whore of a phony, a total pussy. Real men don't do that, only pussies. You keep talking about forgiveness, Emily. That doesn't make disgust go away for disgusting behavior and lies.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
using a howitzer for target practice, boss sure does liven their egos ...

.

 

[Justin Davis]

I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.

No one comes to the Father except through me.

your selective memory serves you poorly ...


gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?

.

Don't give me that selective memory crap. I cut you off in that post. I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into. I wrote a few more posts to you trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity. But, no, all I got from you were more of these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again. I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me. What is it?

I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism. No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this but you, Cornflake. What is it?

BreezeWood: "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"

Rawlings: "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader. What is it?"

BreezeWood gets mad because we can't read his mind. Boss gets mad because we don't agree with the contradiction in his mind. armchaos gets mad because we know he doesn't know what he's talking about, and the atheists get mad because we know they're lying.


So why is that true? That doesn't even jive with what you just said was true. . No that doesn't jive either. .

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

Please stop with this long winded posts about nothing. You only

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The evidence for God's existence is everywhere. That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument. Why don't you read the thread. What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about? Most atheists are total idiots. You're a Christian right? You don't even believe what the Bible tells you? Paul's just kidding around? There's nothing to what he's saying? He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe. You don't know what they are? Seriously? Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The word "manifest" means "obvious."

You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe. Why? You don't have any reason to believe? Must be based on something. You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where? Can you even define God? What evidence spoke to you? You're the one saying you believe for no reason really. That can't be right. How can that be right? Where did you get the idea God? Do you know that much at least? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I know why I believe. The evidence is obvious. The real question is why do you believe? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. You're not making any sense. Come on, man! What made you believe that? That's all I'm asking you. Is it a secrete? Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to? You know that's not the real question. Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists. The Bible calls them fools. You don't know why they're fools? The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence. Things made you believe. What are they?

Where is the proof?

Once again I believe because I want to.

It's a secrete.

Translation: doesn't exist.

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.

No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
the homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.

Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
to look any further.

So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
follow their conscience to establish truth.

Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.

There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
a clear understanding that settles our conscience.

This is a good process. Why?
Because by answering these questions,
it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.

We can get the kinks out of the process
and set up smoother steps for others to follow
to come to similar conclusions at the end.

Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.

Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
are intellectually as honest as they can be
given they do not have the information and experience
I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.

The fact they are open at all, says a lot.

Please do not take this for granted
and think it is phony or a game.

The people I see who are biased against serious research to
settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
in response to how atheists have been bashed.
And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.

Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
science and medical studies that explaint he
process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
so that factor will help with reconciling all these
other issues in turn.

Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
while we seek corrections.

The ones who seek to exclude and divide
will find resolution later as the process moves forward.

The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and
work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
once this is proven to work in building a consensus.

He's not being real with us. Women are more soft on these things. Most men don't have any tolerance for this kind of crap. Actually, liberal men do, but not conservative men. This is not about forgiveness or being nice. It's about the difference between men and women. He came onto this discussion claiming that there is no proof or evidence for God's existence, yet he believes God exists. Sorry. But that's baloney. Where did he get the idea of God in order to believe God exists in the first place? He knows the answer to that question. The answer is not "I believe because I want to." He knows that's not the question, and he knows his question about proof is phony.

I really don't feel like getting into why I believe it's personal and rather emotional. Why do you need that information to prove God exists? It's anecdotal. It couldn't possibly prove anything to anybody.

Quit calling people names quit asking me irrelevant questions and prove God exists, or don't proving yourself a charlatan.

You're question about need is just another phony question, another dodge, and you're no Christian either, just another phony, saying God's word lies and what God's word says isn't important or true. Anecdotal? What a load of baloney. Stop calling people names? Stop being a phony little boy, and act like a man. You call God names. You call God a liar. You got no problem with that. Call him a liar with that phony cross on you, and I'll call you a liar all day long. What a phony little boy you are.

Romans 1: 18 = 20:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

God hasn't proved anything to anyone? Yep. Looks like you're a phony Christian and a liar. Now tells us why you believe God exists. I already know you ain't no real Christian because no real Christian says because I want to or because of emotional reasons. That doesn't make a lick of sense anyway. But you do believe God exists. Why? You know why. Tells us. Stop being a phony. Get real. See, I know all about phoniness. I lived a phony boozed up life with phony friends. I was a phony. I got sick of phony. You're not sick of phony yet? You need to get sick of phony and stop being phony, phony. Tell us why you believe. Where did you get the idea of God in the first place, phony boy?

 

[Inevitable]

your selective memory serves you poorly ...


gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?

.

Don't give me that selective memory crap. I cut you off in that post. I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into. I wrote a few more posts to you trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity. But, no, all I got from you were more of these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again. I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me. What is it?

I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism. No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this but you, Cornflake. What is it?

BreezeWood: "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"

Rawlings: "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader. What is it?"

BreezeWood gets mad because we can't read his mind. Boss gets mad because we don't agree with the contradiction in his mind. armchaos gets mad because we know he doesn't know what he's talking about, and the atheists get mad because we know they're lying.


So why is that true? That doesn't even jive with what you just said was true. . No that doesn't jive either. .

]

That's a motive, not an answer to the question. Why do you think God exists? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in?

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

Please stop with this long winded posts about nothing. You only

The evidence for God's existence is everywhere. That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument. Why don't you read the thread. What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about? Most atheists are total idiots. You're a Christian right? You don't even believe what the Bible tells you? Paul's just kidding around? There's nothing to what he's saying? He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe. You don't know what they are? Seriously? Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

The word "manifest" means "obvious."

You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe. Why? You don't have any reason to believe? Must be based on something. You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? What exists? The word "God"? Ideas of God? Who or what is this thing you think exists? You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where? Can you even define God? What evidence spoke to you? You're the one saying you believe for no reason really. That can't be right. How can that be right? Where did you get the idea God? Do you know that much at least? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I know why I believe. The evidence is obvious. The real question is why do you believe? You're just walking down the street one day and bam God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. You're not making any sense. Come on, man! What made you believe that? That's all I'm asking you. Is it a secrete? Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to? You know that's not the real question. Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists. The Bible calls them fools. You don't know why they're fools? The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence. Things made you believe. What are they?

Where is the proof?

Once again I believe because I want to.

It's a secrete.

Translation: doesn't exist.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.

No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
the homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.

Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
to look any further.

So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
follow their conscience to establish truth.

Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.

There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
a clear understanding that settles our conscience.

This is a good process. Why?
Because by answering these questions,
it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.

We can get the kinks out of the process
and set up smoother steps for others to follow
to come to similar conclusions at the end.

Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.

Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
are intellectually as honest as they can be
given they do not have the information and experience
I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.

The fact they are open at all, says a lot.

Please do not take this for granted
and think it is phony or a game.

The people I see who are biased against serious research to
settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
in response to how atheists have been bashed.
And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.

Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
science and medical studies that explaint he
process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
so that factor will help with reconciling all these
other issues in turn.

Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
while we seek corrections.

The ones who seek to exclude and divide
will find resolution later as the process moves forward.

The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and
work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
once this is proven to work in building a consensus.

He's not being real with us. Women are more soft on these things. Most men don't have any tolerance for this kind of crap. Actually, liberal men do, but not conservative men. This is not about forgiveness or being nice. It's about the difference between men and women. He came onto this discussion claiming that there is no proof or evidence for God's existence, yet he believes God exists. Sorry. But that's baloney. Where did he get the idea of God in order to believe God exists in the first place? He knows the answer to that question. The answer is not "I believe because I want to." He knows that's not the question, and he knows his question about proof is phony.

I really don't feel like getting into why I believe it's personal and rather emotional. Why do you need that information to prove God exists? It's anecdotal. It couldn't possibly prove anything to anybody.

Quit calling people names quit asking me irrelevant questions and prove God exists, or don't proving yourself a charlatan.

You're question about need is just another phony question, another dodge, and you're no Christian either, just another phony, saying God's word lies and what God's word says isn't important or true. Anecdotal? What a load of baloney. Stop calling people names? Stop being a phony little boy, and act like a man. You call God names. You call God a liar. You got no problem with that. Call him a liar with that phony cross on you, and I'll call you a liar all day long. What a phony little boy you are.

Romans 1: 18 = 20:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

God hasn't proved anything to anyone? Yep. Looks like you're a phony Christian and a liar. Now tells us why you believe God exists. I already know you ain't no real Christian because no real Christian says because I want to or because of emotional reasons. That doesn't make a lick of sense anyway. But you do believe God exists. Why? You know why. Tells us. Stop being a phony. Get real. See, I know all about phoniness. I lived a phony boozed up life with phony friends. I was a phony. I got sick of phony. You're not sick of phony yet? You need to get sick of phony and stop being phony, phony. Tell us why you believe. Where did you get the idea of God in the first place, phony boy?

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

 

[Justin Davis]

.
using a howitzer for target practice, boss sure does liven their egos ...

.

Another phony who thinks truth is about egos and not being real with ourselves and one another. So the lie is not what's phony? The liar is not the phony" The guy sick of the lies and the phonies who tell them is the phony, the egotist? That's sick. That's totally backwards. You're just another phony who like lies and phoniness. Obviously it would be the liar who puts his ego and his pride before the truth, before being real with himself and others. So you’re okay with Boss shoving his ego and his pride and his bullshit in your face as if he were God? Is that it phony? Attack the people sick of phonies and buddy up with the phony?

 

[Justin Davis]

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony because it's easier for them to be phonies.

 

[Inevitable]

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony because it's easier for them to be phonies.

So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.

 

[Boss]

Boss is Ridiculous, Refuted and Dumbfounded: Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!

Boss is also arguing that
all we HAVE is our human logic.
Even when we PERCEIVE what God's logic is,
we are limited and biased by our HUMAN LOGIC
so whatever logic God created for us on our level
is determining whatever we look at. it is always
limited by our human logic, which Boss is saying God created.

Now I want to isolate this thought.

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Boss' failure to properly execute the distinction delineated by the second law of thought (the law of contradiction) is the essence of Boss' default to the irrationalism of relativism.

On the grounds of the absolute standard for objectivity, the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the logically highest conceivable standard for divine attribution without begging the question:

God's creative powers are infinitely unlimited, bound by nothing but His nature of absolute perfection. Our creative powers are limited to contriving humanly conceivable things out of preexistent materials. God's knowledge/understanding is infinitely unlimited. Our knowledge is finite as our minds our finite. God is at most immanently and transcendently everywhere, contingent on nothing else but His very own Being. We can only be in one place at a time as far as we know or can tell.

The laws of thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law the excluded middle, comprehensively, the principle of identity) ≠ Informational Knowledge.

Hence, we have the distinction between (1) operational knowledge (the laws of thought) and (2) informational knowledge (the detailed facts/actualities of existence).​

We can imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We can imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain how God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.

In other words:

(1) how could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity: for any given A: A = A? God holds that for any given A: A ≠ A? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?

(2) How could God not hold or be bound by the law of contradiction: for any two or more propositions NOT(A = NOT-A)? God holds that two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions are true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?

(3) How could God not hold or be bound by the law of the excluded middle: for all A: A OR ~A? God does not hold that either the positive or the negative form of any given proposition of a single predicate is true, but that both the positive and the negative form would be true at the time? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God ≠ God?​

Hence, Boss' refusal to believe that our logic is not God's uncreated logic divinely bestowed on us is an absurdity and/or an inherent contradiction of self-negation that positively proves the opposite is logically true.

That is the inescapably reality of human cognition. For any given A: A = A. It is what it is. If this axiom of human cognition is not ultimately or transcendentally true, nothing is sure. Nothing we assert about anything is necessarily true. Yet Boss claims, not only to believe all of kinds things, but to know all kinds of things based on A: A ≠ A!

Boss is outside his mind. God is not a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos. It is Boss, not God, who is the relativist. Hence, Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap!

Here's the real irony in all of this: at one point Boss held that the Transcendental Argument (TAG) is logically true insofar as God's existence is concerned, but the TAG is a double proof. It necessarily holds that (1) God exists and that (2) God is the universal Principle of Identity!

According to the laws of thought, our logic was not created, for our logic is God's logic bestowed on us by God. We cannot coherently think our way out of that axiom.

Knock Knock

Anybody home?

...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Boss]

Boss is also arguing that
all we HAVE is our human logic.

No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.

Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.

We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.

I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic.

Shot-winded, meaningless nonsense. Boss refuses to believe that God gave us minds like his, the logic, thoughts and concepts of his mind. Boss refuses to believe that God bestowed his logic on creation. The logic of our minds is the law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Boss just used human logic to tell us things about God and ultimate reality. That must wrong because human logic doesn't tell us anything that's true. Intrinsic spiritual awareness comes from sentience and logic. Contradiction and chaos is Boss' logic. Boss is chaos.

P.S. I don't think this "refusal" to relate the logic of man's mind with the mind/logic of God
is meant as something negative or false; I believe Boss is trying to put man's knowledge in perspective with God's which is of course greater.

I agree with you that if Boss does not understand the Christian concept of
how "in Christ" our will can be made one with God's then this is not going to make sense.

To Boss it is going to sound like such a person believes they are speaking for God which is presumptious
to say the least.

But M.D. equally objects to "arrogant" assertions by atheists claiming to KNOW what can or cannot be.

It seems clear to me, nobody really takes too well to someone else thinking they "know more"
what is really going on with God than anyone else's guess.

Both M.D. and Boss object to this.

Boss expresses it by stating the knowledge and logic of man is less than God
and for all we know, we don't know what God knows or God's reasons or ways.

I think that is fair as long as you keep it open.

But MD is not being open about relative views, but seems BENT on EXCLUDING that approach to understanding.
while Boss is closed to the idea that human logic can align or represent God's logic.

So they keep clashing.

I can work with MD ways and Boss ways because I am okay with both absolutes
and relatives as not contradicting each other necessarily.

But they keep rejecting each other because they see these as conflicted. I don't.

Even though man's logic is less, it can align and represent what is going on
with God's will for humanity collectively.
I don't have a problem with that.

I also don't have a problem with people like Boss making sure NOT to
impose absolutes to the point where they exclude someone else's relative approach
and what they know.

I think the ideal is to arrive at the absolutes by free will and reason,
so this requires the faith in those truths existing
and it requires the openness to check ourselves
and know that we just know "parts" of the greater truth or logic/knowledge out there.

Nothing wrong with staying humble and keeping
it in perspective so we keep an open mind and don't get stuck on our absolutes.

The absolutist simply holds to what logic dictates. Boss wants to hold out for something that violates logic and what history's philosophers and theologians known to be irrational. Whatever. Boss' crap is the kind of things that cults believe in, brain wash, mind control. Pretty sick. He wants to pick and choose his beliefs. When the conclusions of organic logic suit him he wants them, when they don't he doesn't. He might as well not even make arguments, just make a list of what he wants to believe and why, and stop with all the baloney that reason has anything to do with what he believes. This is Boss: . He just dances all over the place not understanding a damn thing that comes out of mouth. . Logic proves that he's wrong, now he's trying to say logic doesn't prove things, just like the other dummies. Logic doesn't start with absurdities, and I object to something Rawlings just said to you about Boss' "possibility." It's not a logical possibility in formal logic. I know Rawlings knows that and I know what he meant to say, he just said it wrong. Point that out to Rawlings and watch what he does. Is Rawlings a phony? No. He's not a phony. He admits errors and corrects them. Boss is a phony though. He's GT now or Hollie talking moobat nonsense. Ding Dong. Could Boss still be right if what organic logic proves must be true about God is just a coincidence of human nature? Yeah. But it's not a formal logical possibility, just something we can imagine. I can imagine that my dog's a cat. Like Rawlings says, Boss is just pretending that he can explain how God's logic could be "anti-the laws of logic", but he can't. No one can. And we all know that. It's stupid. And the phonies on this thread are just pretending that Boss' crap is something that we should take serious. Hey, maybe pigs can fly. How messed up is that?

God believes cat = dog? All Boss is saying is that the laws of logic are true for God, except when there not true for God. When we ask him to explain that stupid crap, all he really says is that they're not true for God when I say so. That's all Boss is saying, nothing else, for all you dummies out there. Anyone who doesn't get that especially after Rawlings last post is an idiot. I never seen so may phonies in one place in my life, after Rawlings' last post if Boss implies that his imaginary idea, which is just like something from nothing, explains or did explain how God is anti laws of logic again, I'm putting him down for punk ass lying whore of a phony, a total pussy. Real men don't do that, only pussies. You keep talking about forgiveness, Emily. That doesn't make disgust go away for disgusting behavior and lies.

And here we get to see what happens when you challenge the narcissistic. They simply imply you said things that were not said. They type page-long diatribes based on these lies, and pretend they have accomplished something. You can read through Justin's post and find not one word of truth when it comes to his claims of what I have argued here. This cannot be unintentional or a misunderstanding. It is a quite intended smear campaign, designed for one intent and purpose.

Now you must ask yourself, why would these two clowns be going to such bizarre extremes to destroy the credibility of someone who supposedly believes in the same spiritual God they promote? It is because they are threatened by something I have said. In this case, it appears to be the logic that God bestowed upon man, which God created for man to use in his understanding of the universe. This poses a problem for the intellectual high-brow arguments posed by the narcissist. It doesn't let them be 'above' God for the sake of argumentation.

 

[G.T.]

Don't give me that selective memory crap. I cut you off in that post. I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into. I wrote a few more posts to you trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity. But, no, all I got from you were more of these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again. I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me. What is it?

I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism. No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this but you, Cornflake. What is it?

BreezeWood: "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"

Rawlings: "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader. What is it?"

BreezeWood gets mad because we can't read his mind. Boss gets mad because we don't agree with the contradiction in his mind. armchaos gets mad because we know he doesn't know what he's talking about, and the atheists get mad because we know they're lying.


So why is that true? That doesn't even jive with what you just said was true. . No that doesn't jive either. .

wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.

The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work. Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.

Please stop with this long winded posts about nothing. You only

Where is the proof?

Once again I believe because I want to.

It's a secrete.

Translation: doesn't exist.

He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.

No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
the homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.

Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
to look any further.

So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
follow their conscience to establish truth.

Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.

There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
a clear understanding that settles our conscience.

This is a good process. Why?
Because by answering these questions,
it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.

We can get the kinks out of the process
and set up smoother steps for others to follow
to come to similar conclusions at the end.

Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.

Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
are intellectually as honest as they can be
given they do not have the information and experience
I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.

The fact they are open at all, says a lot.

Please do not take this for granted
and think it is phony or a game.

The people I see who are biased against serious research to
settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
in response to how atheists have been bashed.
And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.

Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
science and medical studies that explaint he
process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
so that factor will help with reconciling all these
other issues in turn.

Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
while we seek corrections.

The ones who seek to exclude and divide
will find resolution later as the process moves forward.

The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and
work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
once this is proven to work in building a consensus.

He's not being real with us. Women are more soft on these things. Most men don't have any tolerance for this kind of crap. Actually, liberal men do, but not conservative men. This is not about forgiveness or being nice. It's about the difference between men and women. He came onto this discussion claiming that there is no proof or evidence for God's existence, yet he believes God exists. Sorry. But that's baloney. Where did he get the idea of God in order to believe God exists in the first place? He knows the answer to that question. The answer is not "I believe because I want to." He knows that's not the question, and he knows his question about proof is phony.

I really don't feel like getting into why I believe it's personal and rather emotional. Why do you need that information to prove God exists? It's anecdotal. It couldn't possibly prove anything to anybody.

Quit calling people names quit asking me irrelevant questions and prove God exists, or don't proving yourself a charlatan.

You're question about need is just another phony question, another dodge, and you're no Christian either, just another phony, saying God's word lies and what God's word says isn't important or true. Anecdotal? What a load of baloney. Stop calling people names? Stop being a phony little boy, and act like a man. You call God names. You call God a liar. You got no problem with that. Call him a liar with that phony cross on you, and I'll call you a liar all day long. What a phony little boy you are.

Romans 1: 18 = 20:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

God hasn't proved anything to anyone? Yep. Looks like you're a phony Christian and a liar. Now tells us why you believe God exists. I already know you ain't no real Christian because no real Christian says because I want to or because of emotional reasons. That doesn't make a lick of sense anyway. But you do believe God exists. Why? You know why. Tells us. Stop being a phony. Get real. See, I know all about phoniness. I lived a phony boozed up life with phony friends. I was a phony. I got sick of phony. You're not sick of phony yet? You need to get sick of phony and stop being phony, phony. Tell us why you believe. Where did you get the idea of God in the first place, phony boy?

When you stop acting like a child let me know.

Don't hold your breath

 

[Inevitable]

^^He isn't that lucky

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!


1. The Divine Law of Identity

God holds that for any given A: A ≠ A. Hence, God = Boss.

Check!​

2. The Divine Law of Contradiction

God holds that for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A). Hence, the propositions that 2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss, and 2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion are all true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

Check!​

3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle

God holds that for all A: A AND ~A. Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time: Boss is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is not crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.

(Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially. Boss clearly is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only. Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on. But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.)

Check!​

 

[G.T.]

 

[Boss]

The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!


1. The Divine Law of Identity

God holds that for any given A: A ≠ A. Hence, God = Boss.

Check!​

2. The Divine Law of Contradiction

God holds that for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A). Hence, the propositions that 2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss, and 2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion are all true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

Check!​

3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle

God holds that for all A: A AND ~A. Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time: Boss is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is not crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.

(Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially. Boss clearly is crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only. Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on. But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.)

Check!​

Again, we see a flurry of jargon supposedly signifying something Boss has argued. It is amazingly pathetic that someone of such grandiose verbiage is inclined to spend so much time attacking with outright slander, a fellow believer in God, in a thread where he is surreptitiously attempting to convince those who don't.

It is difficult to understand until you realize what has happened. My argument, which he can't refute, has touched a nerve. Being completely unable to respond rationally, he has taken to the tactic of personal destruction. What he doesn't seem to understand is, he can't destroy me any more than he can destroy my argument. Which, by the way, is nowhere near as complicated at he tries so desperately to make it sound.

In the beginning there was void. God created the universe and every aspect of it. This includes all parameters, laws, pricniples, thoughts, philosophies and concepts of the human mind. There is nothing God didn't create or wasn't capable of creating because God is omnipotent.